Mayor of London logo London Assembly logo
Home

Search questions

Filter results

Asked of 3

Meeting type

Organisation

Question by

Status

Year

  • Question and Answer Session: Mayoral Development Corporation (Supplementary) [7]

    • Question by: Mike Tuffrey
    • Meeting date: 16 March 2011
    In the minute or two left I do not have the time to debate the sweep of the abolition of the Greater London Council (GLC) because it was too interventionist, the strategic role this body was meant to have and now a much more interventionist, but I think many of us round here would be very concerned at planning powers being taken off boroughs as a way of doing business. First question then, very quickly, do you agree that, if we are to go down this MDC route, there should be a very tight set of objectives and time limited...

  • London Development Agency Funding of Organisations

    • Reference: 2008/0006
    • Question by: Sally Hamwee
    • Meeting date: 16 January 2008
    A number of times the phrase is used that you found 'no evidence'. It is difficult to ask you to prove a negative but I think it would be helpful to have assurances about the thoroughness of the review. Could you tell me about what interviews and discussions there were with staff, with representatives from the projects and so on?

  • Review process of LDA funding

    • Reference: 2008/0007
    • Question by: Tony Arbour
    • Meeting date: 16 January 2008
    Yes. I would like to know exactly how you carried out your investigation; for example, did you interview the whistleblower, Brenda Stern, as to the allegations which she made and which were repeated in the Evening Standard?

  • Review process of LDA funding (Supplementary) [12]

    • Question by: Bob Neill
    • Meeting date: 16 January 2008
    Understood. Then, quite separately, as you also point out in your report, there is a separate police investigation into the Green Badge Taxi School which you are cooperating with?

  • Review process of LDA funding (Supplementary) [13]

    • Question by: Bob Neill
    • Meeting date: 16 January 2008
    Yes, thank you very much, so that is an internal review. Your conclusions in the report, which I have read and which were submitted to the LDA Board, really put it in these terms, do they not, as Mike Tuffrey has said; in a nutshell, of the six you concentrated on, four require further work, three of those specifically involve the police and we do not know whether Brixton Base will involve the police or not because it is too early to say yet; you need to do further work. Is that a fair conclusion?

  • Review process of LDA funding (Supplementary) [14]

    • Question by: John Biggs
    • Meeting date: 16 January 2008
    So, again, no intervention; the Board did not rewrite it, ask you to pull your punches or whatever?

  • Review process of LDA funding (Supplementary) [15]

    • Question by: Bob Neill
    • Meeting date: 16 January 2008
    But none of the organisations have received grants?

  • Review process of LDA funding (Supplementary) [16]

    • Question by: John Biggs
    • Meeting date: 16 January 2008
    Therefore if you are looking at questions of the inner workings of organisations you might have funded in the past, you simply do not have the powers to investigate those to the extent that the allegations would suggest you might need to or might want to, or a third party might want to?

  • Review process of LDA funding (Supplementary) [17]

    • Question by: Bob Neill
    • Meeting date: 16 January 2008
    Mr Travers, you have already made it clear, and I think it follows, that you did not speak to people who are not employees of the LDA. Does that mean you did not speak to Mr Jasper?

  • Review process of LDA funding (Supplementary) [19]

    • Question by: Bob Neill
    • Meeting date: 16 January 2008
    So, two thirds of the six you concentrated on require further work. You make the point in your report, 'Further work is required in respect of four organisations including referral to police and no conclusions are reached in respect of those matters' for the reasons you have sensibly set out?